Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 84.12.350 (2026)

Apportionment of value by department of revenue

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Upon determination by the department of revenue of the true and fair value of the property appearing on such rolls it shall apportion such value to the respective counties entitled thereto, as hereinafter provided, and shall determine the equalized assessed valuation of such property in each such county and in the several taxing districts therein, by applying to such actual apportioned value the same ratio as the ratio of assessed to actual value of the general property in such county: PROVIDED, That, whenever the amount of the true and fair value of the operating property of any company otherwise apportionable to any county or other taxing district shall be less than two hundred fifty dollars, such amount need not be apportioned to such county or taxing district but may be added to the amount apportioned to an adjacent county or taxing district.

[ 2001 c 187 s 7; 1997 c 3 s 117 (Referendum Bill No. 47, approved November 4, 1997); 1994 c 301 s 23; 1967 ex.s. c 26 s 17; 1961 c 15 s 84.12.350. Prior: 1939 c 206 s 21; 1935 c 123 s 14; RRS s 11156-14. Formerly RCW 84.12.140.]

Notes:

Contingent effective date—2001 c 187: See note following RCW 84.70.010.

Application—2001 c 187: See note following RCW 84.40.020.

Application—Severability—Part headings not law—Referral to electorate—1997 c 3: See notes following RCW 84.40.030.

Effective date—1967 ex.s. c 26: See note following RCW 82.01.050.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1972–1994 · leading case: Burlington N., Inc. v. Johnston, 572 P.2d 1085 (Wash. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burlington N., Inc. v. Johnston, 572 P.2d 1085 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 24× “They contended that the method used was unconstitutional and that it was not authorized by RCW 84.12.350 and RCW 84.16.110, which provide for equalization of such *324 properties.”

Inter Island Tel. Co. v. San Juan Cnty., 883 P.2d 1380 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 3× “This dispute arises from RCW 84.12.350: Upon determination by the department of revenue of the true and correct actual cash value of the property appearing on such rolls it shall apportion such value to the respective counties entitled thereto, as hereinafter provided, and shall…”

Sator v. Dep't of Revenue, 572 P.2d 1094 (Wash. 1977). “Furthermore, this interpretation has not been challenged by the legislature and the language upon which the Department relies has been reenacted three times since its original passage in 1967.”

Island Cnty. Comm. on Assessment Ratios v. Dep't of Revenue, 500 P.2d 756 (Wash. 1972). “Plaintiffs contend that the delegation of power to make ratio studies was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority because the legislative guidelines or standards were too broad, that the 1969 changes to include additional factors in making computations were so…”

Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. Clark Cnty., 658 P.2d 669 (Wash. 1983). “See RCW 84.12.350. The focus of Northwest's challenge in this action is the second step of the valuation process, the allocation of system value to Washington.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.